[PATCH v9 9/9] landlock: Add KUnit tests for LANDLOCK_ADD_RULE_NO_INHERIT
Justin Suess
utilityemal77 at gmail.com
Sun Jun 21 03:52:22 UTC 2026
Add the landlock_ruleset KUnit suite with three tests for the
no_inherit handling in landlock_unmask_layers():
- test_unmask_no_inherit_propagates: a rule with no_inherit unmasks
access and sets the no_inherit bit on the layer mask.
- test_unmask_multilayer_no_inherit: no_inherit on one layer of a
multi-layer rule only affects that layer.
- test_unmask_no_inherit_sequential: applying a descendant rule
(no_inherit) followed by an ancestor rule causes the ancestor to be
skipped, modeling a path walk. This exercises the same skip branch
that a pre-set no_inherit mask would, via realistic rule application.
Signed-off-by: Justin Suess <utilityemal77 at gmail.com>
---
Notes:
Changes since v8:
- Reduced from five tests to three, dropping test_unmask_no_inherit_skip
and test_unmask_no_inherit_both_set (which set the per-layer no_inherit
bit synthetically). Kept test_unmask_no_inherit_propagates,
test_unmask_multilayer_no_inherit, and test_unmask_no_inherit_sequential,
which exercise the same skip branch through realistic rule application.
- Rebased onto mic/next.
security/landlock/ruleset.c | 137 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 137 insertions(+)
diff --git a/security/landlock/ruleset.c b/security/landlock/ruleset.c
index ca7cfa45c90a..144b6fc19f79 100644
--- a/security/landlock/ruleset.c
+++ b/security/landlock/ruleset.c
@@ -6,6 +6,7 @@
* Copyright © 2018-2020 ANSSI
*/
+#include <kunit/test.h>
#include <linux/bits.h>
#include <linux/bug.h>
#include <linux/cleanup.h>
@@ -766,3 +767,139 @@ landlock_init_layer_masks(const struct landlock_ruleset *const domain,
return handled_accesses;
}
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_SECURITY_LANDLOCK_KUNIT_TEST
+
+/*
+ * Helper to allocate a rule with @num_layers layers and initialize
+ * its num_layers field. Caller must fill in individual layers.
+ */
+static struct landlock_rule *alloc_rule(struct kunit *test, u32 num_layers)
+{
+ struct landlock_rule *rule;
+
+ rule = kzalloc(struct_size(rule, layers, num_layers), GFP_KERNEL);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(test, rule);
+ rule->num_layers = num_layers;
+ return rule;
+}
+
+/*
+ * Build a layer_masks with the first @num_layers layers' access set to
+ * @val, and all no_inherit flags cleared. Layers beyond @num_layers stay
+ * zeroed, matching what landlock_init_layer_masks() produces for a domain
+ * with that many layers.
+ */
+static void fill_masks(struct layer_masks *masks, access_mask_t val,
+ size_t num_layers)
+{
+ memset(masks, 0, sizeof(*masks));
+ for (size_t i = 0; i < num_layers; i++)
+ masks->layers[i].access = val;
+}
+
+/* Verify that a rule with no_inherit unmasks access and propagates the flag. */
+static void test_unmask_no_inherit_propagates(struct kunit *const test)
+{
+ struct landlock_rule *rule = alloc_rule(test, 1);
+ struct layer_masks masks;
+ const access_mask_t req = BIT_ULL(0) | BIT_ULL(1);
+
+ rule->layers[0].level = 1;
+ rule->layers[0].access = BIT_ULL(0);
+ rule->layers[0].flags.no_inherit = true;
+
+ fill_masks(&masks, req, 1);
+ landlock_unmask_layers(rule, &masks);
+
+ /* access bit 0 should be cleared, bit 1 remains */
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, (access_mask_t)masks.layers[0].access,
+ BIT_ULL(1));
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, masks.layers[0].no_inherit);
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, (access_mask_t)masks.layers[1].access, 0);
+ kfree(rule);
+}
+
+/*
+ * Verify that no_inherit on layer 1 of a multi-layer rule only affects
+ * layer 1; layer 2 still contributes normally.
+ */
+static void test_unmask_multilayer_no_inherit(struct kunit *const test)
+{
+ struct landlock_rule *rule = alloc_rule(test, 2);
+ struct layer_masks masks;
+ const access_mask_t req = BIT_ULL(0) | BIT_ULL(1);
+
+ rule->layers[0].level = 1;
+ rule->layers[0].access = BIT_ULL(0);
+ rule->layers[0].flags.no_inherit = true;
+
+ rule->layers[1].level = 2;
+ rule->layers[1].access = BIT_ULL(1);
+
+ fill_masks(&masks, req, 2);
+ landlock_unmask_layers(rule, &masks);
+
+ /* Layer 1: bit 0 cleared, no_inherit set */
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, (access_mask_t)masks.layers[0].access, BIT_ULL(1));
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, masks.layers[0].no_inherit);
+
+ /* Layer 2: bit 1 cleared, no_inherit not set */
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, (access_mask_t)masks.layers[1].access, BIT_ULL(0));
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, masks.layers[1].no_inherit);
+ kfree(rule);
+}
+
+/*
+ * Verify that when applying two rules sequentially (as happens during
+ * a path walk), no_inherit from the first rule prevents the second
+ * rule from contributing to that layer.
+ */
+static void test_unmask_no_inherit_sequential(struct kunit *const test)
+{
+ struct landlock_rule *rule1 = alloc_rule(test, 1);
+ struct landlock_rule *rule2 = alloc_rule(test, 1);
+ struct layer_masks masks;
+ const access_mask_t req = BIT_ULL(0) | BIT_ULL(1);
+
+ /* Rule 1: no_inherit on layer 1, grants access bit 0 */
+ rule1->layers[0].level = 1;
+ rule1->layers[0].access = BIT_ULL(0);
+ rule1->layers[0].flags.no_inherit = true;
+
+ /* Rule 2: also on layer 1, grants access bit 1 (ancestor rule) */
+ rule2->layers[0].level = 1;
+ rule2->layers[0].access = BIT_ULL(1);
+
+ /* Apply rule1 first (descendant), then rule2 (ancestor) */
+ fill_masks(&masks, req, 1);
+ landlock_unmask_layers(rule1, &masks);
+ landlock_unmask_layers(rule2, &masks);
+
+ /*
+ * Rule2 should be skipped because rule1 set no_inherit.
+ * bit 0 cleared by rule1, bit 1 remains because rule2 skipped.
+ */
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, (access_mask_t)masks.layers[0].access, BIT_ULL(1));
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, masks.layers[0].no_inherit);
+ kfree(rule1);
+ kfree(rule2);
+}
+
+static struct kunit_case test_cases[] = {
+ /* clang-format off */
+ KUNIT_CASE(test_unmask_no_inherit_propagates),
+ KUNIT_CASE(test_unmask_multilayer_no_inherit),
+ KUNIT_CASE(test_unmask_no_inherit_sequential),
+ {}
+ /* clang-format on */
+};
+
+static struct kunit_suite test_suite = {
+ .name = "landlock_ruleset",
+ .test_cases = test_cases,
+};
+
+kunit_test_suite(test_suite);
+
+#endif /* CONFIG_SECURITY_LANDLOCK_KUNIT_TEST */
--
2.54.0
More information about the Linux-security-module-archive
mailing list